I don't know if anyone has followed this story, but Michelle Carter has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter following the suicide of her boyfriend. I read about this case a while back, and I was shocked at what she did, so I'm not surprised she's been found guilty.

I agree H. When I first read about it I thought she couldn't be prosecuted with any real prospect of a conviction, but I think the verdict was right. The whole thing was just appalling.

I went through the same course of emotions/opinions, and I believe the jury got it right...although only for involuntary manslaughter. I have no idea what she was thinking, but she exhibited the requisite recklessness (I don't believe negligence played into it) to hold her responsible.

I agree H. When I first read about it I thought she couldn't be prosecuted with any real prospect of a conviction, but I think the verdict was right. The whole thing was just appalling.

I went through the same course of emotions/opinions, and I believe the jury got it right...although only for involuntary manslaughter. I have no idea what she was thinking, but she exhibited the requisite recklessness (I don't believe negligence played into it) to hold her responsible.

I guess she didn't actually physically help to kill him, he did that himself. I don't know what she was thinking either, but it sounds like a deliberate thing rather than recklessness. Did she think he would be genuinely better off dead, or was it an attempt at murder by proxy for some bizarre reason.

Anyway, this case is important because the question is whether or not it sets a precedent, and how that would be applied. Does merely telling someone to kill themselves count as incitement? Probably not.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, this case is important because the question is whether or not it sets a precedent, and how that would be applied. Does merely telling someone to kill themselves count as incitement? Probably not.

I think it should be classed as manslaughter/murder when someone does this. Just as you can talk someone down from a high building, you can influence their death too in the same situation.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, this case is important because the question is whether or not it sets a precedent, and how that would be applied. Does merely telling someone to kill themselves count as incitement? Probably not.

I think it should be classed as manslaughter/murder when someone does this. Just as you can talk someone down from a high building, you can influence their death too in the same situation.

I agree, which is why I added the caveat: "...although only for involuntary manslaughter." This charge has two contingencies, either negligence or recklessness. It is supposed to be without intent, and here's where I say I don't know what she was thinking.

Clearly, it wasn't negligence, as she was acting for some purpose. There is manifest intent, but what was it? What was she trying to do? Did she have an ax to grind? Or, was she trying reverse psychology? Who knows...but it was reckless.

I think it should be classed as manslaughter/murder when someone does this. Just as you can talk someone down from a high building, you can influence their death too in the same situation.

I agree, which is why I added the caveat: "...although only for involuntary manslaughter." This charge has two contingencies, either negligence or recklessness. It is supposed to be without intent, and here's where I say I don't know what she was thinking.

Clearly, it wasn't negligence, as she was acting for some purpose. There is manifest intent, but what was it? What was she trying to do? Did she have an ax to grind? Or, was she trying reverse psychology? Who knows...but it was reckless.

I agree, which is why I added the caveat: "...although only for involuntary manslaughter." This charge has two contingencies, either negligence or recklessness. It is supposed to be without intent, and here's where I say I don't know what she was thinking.

Clearly, it wasn't negligence, as she was acting for some purpose. There is manifest intent, but what was it? What was she trying to do? Did she have an ax to grind? Or, was she trying reverse psychology? Who knows...but it was reckless.

What about malicious intent?

Involuntary manslaughter is one of those crimes that do not require intent:

National Paralegal College wrote:Involuntary Manslaughter. Terms: Involuntary Manslaughter: Homicide that is committed without the intent to kill, but with criminal recklessness or negligence; or a death that results during the commission of or flight from a misdemeanor or felony that is not encompassed by the felony-murder rule.

I believe if you could show intent, you would be in one of the higher categories of homicide. That's the reason the prosecutors limited themselves to involuntary manslaughter. The elements of involuntary manslaughter are recklessness or negligence. The two are disjunctive, so it can be either one or the other.

The defendant had a purpose, so it's hard to say she was negligent. You can't argue negligence if you are successful. Lol. The question is, what purpose did she have? Revenge? Assisted suicide? Reverse psychology? We don't know. The only thing we do know is, she was reckless, and it cost someone his life: ergo involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter is one of those crimes that do not require intent:

National Paralegal College wrote:Involuntary Manslaughter. Terms: Involuntary Manslaughter: Homicide that is committed without the intent to kill, but with criminal recklessness or negligence; or a death that results during the commission of or flight from a misdemeanor or felony that is not encompassed by the felony-murder rule.

I believe if you could show intent, you would be in one of the higher categories of homicide. That's the reason the prosecutors limited themselves to involuntary manslaughter. The elements of involuntary manslaughter are recklessness or negligence. The two are disjunctive, so it can be either one or the other.

The defendant had a purpose, so it's hard to say she was negligent. You can't argue negligence if you are successful. Lol. The question is, what purpose did she have? Revenge? Assisted suicide? Reverse psychology? We don't know. The only thing we do know is, she was reckless, and it cost someone his life: ergo involuntary manslaughter.

Looks to me that she did show intent. She kept on goading and advising him to kill himself. How much more 'intent' does one need to illustrate?

Involuntary manslaughter is one of those crimes that do not require intent:

I believe if you could show intent, you would be in one of the higher categories of homicide. That's the reason the prosecutors limited themselves to involuntary manslaughter. The elements of involuntary manslaughter are recklessness or negligence. The two are disjunctive, so it can be either one or the other.

The defendant had a purpose, so it's hard to say she was negligent. You can't argue negligence if you are successful. Lol. The question is, what purpose did she have? Revenge? Assisted suicide? Reverse psychology? We don't know. The only thing we do know is, she was reckless, and it cost someone his life: ergo involuntary manslaughter.

Looks to me that she did show intent. She kept on goading and advising him to kill himself. How much more 'intent' does one need to illustrate?

It is a bit strange because involuntary manslaughter is generally a verdict which means that the accused didn't intend death. Well she certainly intended that he would die.

Involuntary manslaughter is one of those crimes that do not require intent:

I believe if you could show intent, you would be in one of the higher categories of homicide. That's the reason the prosecutors limited themselves to involuntary manslaughter. The elements of involuntary manslaughter are recklessness or negligence. The two are disjunctive, so it can be either one or the other.

The defendant had a purpose, so it's hard to say she was negligent. You can't argue negligence if you are successful. Lol. The question is, what purpose did she have? Revenge? Assisted suicide? Reverse psychology? We don't know. The only thing we do know is, she was reckless, and it cost someone his life: ergo involuntary manslaughter.

Looks to me that she did show intent. She kept on goading and advising him to kill himself. How much more 'intent' does one need to illustrate?

Intent to do what? We're not sure what she was doing.

She wasn't there, so she didn't physically kill him. She was talking. In fact, the conviction may be reversed on First Amendment, free speech grounds. The nearest to what she was doing was influencing his decisions to do a suicide. It was reckless.